Trial wipes out over 80% of Australian disease-spreading mosquito • Hacker News Board

Re: Trial wipes out over 80% of Australian disease-spreading mosquito

#281

Post by throwaway37585 » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 4:44 PM UTC

JackCh wrote: post #26

jonny_eh wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, pretty sure: https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

> "Yet in many cases, scientists acknowledge that the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other organisms." More concerning than the ecological scar left behind by the eradication of some species of mosquito is the precedent that would be set. Once you've deliberately eradicated one pest species, people will incorporate the knowledge of that action into their image…

I'm a bit puzzled. Are you saying smallpox shouldn't have been eradicated?

Re: Trial wipes out over 80% of Australian disease-spreading mosquito

#282

Post by magduf » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 9:15 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #280

joatmon-snoo wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This question comes up every time something like this makes the news, and in general the people qualified to have opinions are generally either ambivalent or believe the pros outweigh the cons. One article: https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

Your source appears to support the destruction of the whole Culicidae family; and doesn't appear to care if that puts the Carmargue martens, as an example, below replacement levels of reproduction. >"They don't occupy an unassailable niche in the environment," says entomologist Joe Conlon, of the American Mosquito Control Association in Jacksonville, Florida. "If we eradicated them tomorrow, the ecosystems where they…

One thing to remember is that many of these mosquito species are actually invasive species. A. aegyptus is from Africa, after all, so it really has no business in the Americas or Australia. Unless it's a prime food source for something else, and has also basically eradicated some other native species that served that role, I don't see how you could argue that it shouldn't be eradicated from those continents. Eradicating invasive species is almost always considered OK.

Re: Trial wipes out over 80% of Australian disease-spreading mosquito

#283

Post by magduf » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 9:52 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #62

subpixel wrote: post #48

I’m not a zealot on the subject but I do believe some form of equally-distributed sterilization is the only way the human race can be saved from itself. That’s a very hard conversation I’d like to see broached.

I seriously doubt we are anywhere near population maximums for this planet. Even in our mismanaged state of resource usage we have such sheer over abundance and waste we don't deal with. We face a problem of distribution to those in need in countries whose governments directly or indirectly prevent said resources from reaching those in need. We don't even use the majority of arable land for crops yet

Exactly. If we figured out how to do vertical farming efficiently, and packed more people into cities in an efficient but highly livable manner (more high-rises, much better public transit, getting people to stop expecting a giant house with giant yard and having cars to take them everywhere), we could easily both expand the human population and also return a lot of land to nature.

Re: Trial wipes out over 80% of Australian disease-spreading mosquito

#284

Post by 8bitsrule » Sat, Jul 14, 2018, 4:12 AM UTC

samatman wrote: post #216

8bitsrule wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a problem if their goals include efficiently getting the most research value out of taxpayer investment, while retaining highly-skilled public employees in a long-lived, scientifically-oriented organization. Historically, a high percentage of major advances in basic science arose in publically-funded org's. The vision tends to be more long-term, the results less utilitarian.

I've been known to draw public funds, so I'm not disputing your angle, but it's worth noting that historical period is quite brief in the whole history of science. I could make a strong case that the majority of major advances in basic science were made during the "gentleman academic" era. Publicly-funded research institutions start to become prominent around the Great War, and their relevance is increasingly challen…

True that the gentleman academics did find much of the more obvious stuff (not to denigrate). I was thinking more after 1850 or so (more like modern times). (Not prepared to parse how much the European finds were in public schools. Good topic!)

OTOH, I'll stick by my claim that 'basic research' done by privates -- (Bell notwithstanding ... e.g. Jansky was looking to solve a -private- problem, not discover radioastronomy) and especially nowadays -- is much likelier to have a particular pecuniary bias. So, not so 'basic'. Unlike, say, NASA.

Re: Trial wipes out over 80% of Australian disease-spreading mosquito

#285

Post by dosy » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 9:11 AM UTC

dosy wrote: post #218

meowface wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong, but you also have to consider that species-altering technology will likely save millions more lives in the next few decades than "strategies like repellents / clothing / vaccines" alone. There are careful tradeoffs and considerations to be made here. Germline altering should only be done in extreme circumstances, and I think this is one of them. Even if mosquitoes do pass on vital antibodies (why ha…

Yeah I think this is the right approach to thinking about these things. Careful consideration of the trade-offs and potential consequences. Rather than the "hey we have a new big weapon against X", let's deploy it everywhere! Maybe I was wrong to think people were suggesting this, but history has examples where humans have made these mistakes. So I think instinct to caution for systems we don't understand and can't e…

But thinking about it more I really don't think we should be ecoengineering by deleting species. I think we can modify species, and in this case I think what we should be aiming for is modifying the pathogen, and we should not be deleting a species of mosquito. That is very bad I think.